<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (7) TMI 831 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125620</link>
    <description>Unaccounted raw materials found in a factory were treated as not liable to confiscation where no Cenvat credit had been availed, consistent with earlier Central Excise decisions. The Tribunal also found no corroborative evidence of clandestine removal of finished goods, so the confiscation of those goods could not be sustained on the record. It accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; distinction between raw materials and finished goods, and the reduced penalty for failure to maintain proper accountal was left undisturbed. On those facts, the confiscation and enhanced penalty were held unjustified, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 831 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125620</link>
      <description>Unaccounted raw materials found in a factory were treated as not liable to confiscation where no Cenvat credit had been availed, consistent with earlier Central Excise decisions. The Tribunal also found no corroborative evidence of clandestine removal of finished goods, so the confiscation of those goods could not be sustained on the record. It accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; distinction between raw materials and finished goods, and the reduced penalty for failure to maintain proper accountal was left undisturbed. On those facts, the confiscation and enhanced penalty were held unjustified, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>